Nothing in India's new immigration statute uses the word "protest." That's worth holding onto while reading about the notice served on actor Imran Khan this month, because it's why the case matters well beyond one film star.

Khan is a US citizen with an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. On October 10, Mumbai Police detained him near August Kranti Maidan, where a protest demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Khan denies taking part and says he was only standing near the site. BJP leader Kirit Somaiya then complained to the police that Khan, a US citizen, had broken the law, and the police informed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). On October 14 the FRRO ordered Khan to leave India by October 28. The notice says he contravened the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and warns of prosecution if he stays.

What the Act says

The Act got presidential assent on April 4, 2025, and came into force on September 1, 2025. It repealed four older laws, among them the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939. Under section 2(f), a "foreigner" is anyone who isn't an Indian citizen, OCI holders included. OCI is a lifelong visa. It isn't citizenship.

Section 3 sets the base rule: a foreigner needs a valid passport and a valid visa to enter or stay.

Section 7 is where the action is. The Central Government can, by order, direction or instruction, prohibit, regulate or restrict a foreigner's entry, departure or continued presence in India, whether for all foreigners, a class of them or one person. Clause (c) of section 7(2) lets an order say a foreigner shall not remain in India or in any specified area. Clause (f) allows conditions such as limits on movement, and its sub clause (viii) lets an order bar a foreigner from "activities of a specified description." Section 7(4) adds that an authority specified for the purpose can issue such an order against a particular foreigner under clause (f).

Section 29 is about removal. The Government can direct a foreigner's removal for breaking any provision of the Act, or any rule, order or direction under it, or on an adverse security report. Officers then get "all reasonable powers" to carry that out.

Punishments sit elsewhere. Section 23 covers a foreigner who overstays or breaches a visa condition, and anyone who breaks a provision with no specific punishment of its own. The ceiling is three years in jail, a fine of up to ₹3 lakh, or both. Section 26 lets a police officer of Head Constable rank or above arrest without a warrant for a section 3 violation.

The word "deportation" never appears. The Act speaks of removal. A leave India notice looks like the gentler first step, a chance to go on your own. Ignore it and removal, maybe prosecution, comes into view. And look at what sections 7 and 29 leave out. Neither mentions a hearing. Carriers, by contrast, can't be penalised under section 19 without being heard. A foreigner facing removal gets no such promise in the text, which, to our mind, is the oddest part of the scheme.

Can a foreigner protest in India?

Not the way a citizen can. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), the rights to speak freely and to assemble peacefully, belong only to citizens. In an interim order in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (LL 2021 SC 202), the Supreme Court noted that Articles 14 and 21 protect non citizens too, but observed that the right not to be deported is ancillary to the right to reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(e), which only citizens enjoy.

OCI status adds statutory protection. Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 gives OCI holders rights above an ordinary foreigner. A Home Ministry notification of March 4, 2021, quoted in the Roughton judgment discussed below, asks for a special permit for activities such as research, missionary work, mountaineering and journalism, and for visiting protected, restricted or prohibited areas. Protest isn't on that list. The notification also says that in fields it doesn't mention, an OCI holder has the same rights as a foreigner. So, it neither bans protest nor protects it, and that gap is the heart of Khan's case.

Taking away the card itself is a different, heavier process. Section 7D of the Citizenship Act lists the grounds and requires a reasonable chance to be heard before cancellation. Khan's card hasn't been cancelled. Reports say the FRRO issued a separate show cause notice on October 17 asking why it shouldn't be, and his petition doesn't challenge that notice.

Has this happened before?

Yes, under older laws. In December 2019, German exchange student Jakob Lindenthal said immigration officials in Chennai told him he had broken his student visa conditions by joining protests there against the Citizenship Amendment Act, and that he must leave India. A senior FRRO official told the Indian Express it looked like a clear case of violating visa rules, though he was unaware of the specifics.

The courts have been more demanding about OCI cards. In July 2023, the Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of Sweden based academic Ashok Swain's card because the order, in Justice Subramonium Prasad's words, repeated the section "as a mantra" without giving reasons (2023 LiveLaw (Del) 571). A fresh order followed. On March 28, 2025, Justice Sachin Datta set that aside too, leaving the authorities free to issue a fresh show cause notice (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379).

Justice Datta decided another OCI case the same day, John Robert Roughton III v. Union of India (2025:DHC:2108). A US citizen with an OCI card was refused entry at Delhi airport on his return from a trip abroad and put on the flight back, with no reasons given. The old Foreigners Act didn't expressly provide for a hearing, yet the court read the hearing requirement of section 7D into the case and held that the deportation and blacklisting failed.

The law isn't one way, though. In August 2026 a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said, in an interim order in Khalid Jahangir Qazi v. Union of India (2026 LiveLaw (Del) 746), that prima facie the section 7D safeguards cannot be imported automatically into proceedings under the Foreigners Act. It added that section 7 of the 2025 Act, which mirrors section 3 of the old law, doesn't carry them either. The cross appeals were listed for final hearing on August 24, and we found no ruling since.

What the Bombay High Court is hearing

Khan moved the Bombay High Court on October 17. His petition says the notice gave no reasons, supporting material or specific contravention, and that it came within five days of the complaint, with no inquiry, show cause notice or chance to respond. It also says the FRRO ignored his OCI status. He asks the court to quash the notice and stay it in the meantime.

On October 19, a bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna agreed to hear the plea and listed it for October 26. The bench asked whether Khan had any antecedents, and counsel said he had none.

On October 26 the Solicitor General appeared for the Union, and Mr. Dhond, appearing for Khan, sought a short adjournment. On October 27, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh asked to defer the hearing to November 2 because the Solicitor General couldn't join by video link. Mr. Dhond pointed out that Khan had to leave the next day. After the Government gave an assurance, the bench recorded that the October 14 notice "will be kept in abeyance" until November 2. That pauses the notice. It doesn't decide whether it was lawful.

Several questions are open. Which provision is Khan said to have broken? Does the notice give reasons? Was he owed a hearing, when section 7 is silent, Roughton points one way and the Qazi bench's first viewpoints the other? And did the FRRO have the authority to issue it, given that section 7 speaks of the Central Government and section 28 lets it delegate by notification?

So can a foreigner be punished for joining a protest? Not automatically. It comes down to the conditions on the visa or OCI card, whether an order under section 7 has been served on that person, and whether the gathering itself broke the law. Here, whether Khan took part at all is disputed, since he denies it. His petition also says an FIR was lodged on a political complaint. Its allegations are untested.

The matter is next listed on Monday, November 2. What the Bombay High Court makes of the petition from then on will tell OCI holders what the 2025 Act leaves them free to do.

Author Utsav Singh is an LLM student at National Law University, Jodhpur & Vijay Pratap Singh Bhadoriya is an LLM student at National Law University, Delhi. Views are personal.